(Yet another) Paladin behaviour question

[doktorstick]

The only thing that gives me pause is the deception. That is always a touchy thing when paladins do it. Hey, I have used deception by omission when playing a paladin. It is definitely like playing with fire, though.

I cannot remember where I read it, but Paladins can ambush foes (a "deception", if you will). They are good warriors and should have sound tactics. This was a different sort of ambush, just not the kind that happens on an inviting shortcut through the forest.

/ds

 

[Celtavian]

Re

The life of a Paladin is not easy. I always hate playing adventures where you are expected to engage in subterfuge and skulking. The worst situation is when you have to actually don armor other than Full Plate. That really makes me unhappy.

I still would love to know how this guy had the resources to hall a tent and a disintegration chamber to some area for this purpose, as well as the spell support to use veiled silenced spells and an illusionary arena, yet didn't have the power to hunt down and kill or apprehend 40 low level bandits. It doesn't seem to add up.

I guess it just isn't a scenario I could ever see myself playing out. Bandit kingdoms are filled with low level cannon fodder. I would bet even my level 10 Paladin could enter the kingdom could enter their area and deal hundreds of losses. Just the other day a party of 8 8th level characters utterly annihilated a hundred orcs rather quickly. I don't see how a bandit kingdom could field much harder than orcs.

 

[Westwind]

One of the things that appeals to me (and, I take it, many people posting in this thread) about Paladins is the different ways they can be played. Celtavian prefers the "classic" image while doctorstick and NWK divert from that somewhat. This is the kind of thing that can lead to great gaming (or terrible fights ) I (and the Paladin's player) err on the side of NWK and such. Walking around in Fullplate is great when you want to be a symbol of your station and church, but can be annoying as hell when you need to talk to peasants (you frighten them) or get into a less-reputable city to rescue someone. That fact that our Paladin's armor is armor of command (the "fixed" version, thankfully) drives home this point time and again...


He did have the power to hunt down 40 bandits, that's exactly what he did. It was faster and quicker to hunt them down while they were all in the same place. He didn't have the power to take on an army one-on-one (or even party-on-army). We're talking over 1000 bandits, easy. That's a long fight, and one we couldn't win (unless the bandits were kind enough to line up single file and the DM decided to ignore fatigue).

 

[Johno]

I agree with Celtavain.

Mind you, it is Westwind's game, and that is only the feeling I get from what has been posted here. So no insult is intended to Westwinds game, which is after all just a game meant to be enjoyed, and it seems like they are doing that, so something is being done right...

I do think that there are options to be taken with regards to subterfuge/prisoners for Paladins. None of them are EASY (tm), and many probably at the very least get up the nose of the rest of the party, but there are always other options than just straight out slaughter.

Sort of depends on the DM, really.

 

[Macbrea]

Assuming that the Paladin was acting as a leader of his church and going after the members of a criminal mercenary organization that had participated in a war crime. His action were within reason. He acted Lawful in that he asked each person for a trail by combat. The nature of a trail by combat determines who is right and who is wrong. What the gamemaster should have done is have one of the men do the obvious, "I accept your trial by combat but will face you on an open field under the sky of both our lords." If the Paladin still attacks the man then he has broken both the Laws of trial by combat and has committed murder. If all men entering the area accept the combat and fight it on the paladins turf they are accepting the tent as a lawful court.

Assuming the bandit kingdom is the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth land", then the actions are by far more lawful then the land about it. The paladin entered the land looking for certian criminals, stated he was looking for the men that fought at the battle of x, tested each person with magic to make sure that they were the men that fought at the battle of x, then challenged each man to a trial by combat. There cannot be a better example of a lawful procedure done in an unlawful land. Had any of those men accepted the challenge and actually demanded to fight it on the open field outside the tent the paladin would have been screwed. A duel in front of all the rest of the mercenaries would have ended it in a major fight. They would have watched the fight then killed the paladin.

As to the burial of the men. You would have to know the burial rights for the lands. And the burial right for criminals of that church.



By the way this is what a trail by combat meant

Trial by combat was an custom with many Germanic tribes and in the chaotic period between the fall of Rome (5th century) and the establishment of formal courts (11th century) using Roman law, trial by combat was used as an effective means of settling disputes between the many well armed, and highly opinionated warriors that ruled Europe. Even as courts came into use, trial by combat was still invoked to test the honesty of witnesses. In many areas, anyone invloved in a courtroom trial could accuse witnesses of perjury and challenge him to a duel to settle the matter. The case was immediatley adjourned until the combat completed (and often the whole case was won or lost). In some areas (Barvaria, for example) up until the 9th century gave the defendant the right to challenge witnesses. This produced the custom of witnesses coming to court armed, and with blessed weapons ready to defend their sworn testimony. If the witness lost the combat, they were fined the amount that their testimony would have cost the defendant.

 

[Artoomis]

Just to stir things up some more, I thought I would quote "Faiths and Pantheons" from the Tyr entry (not the same God, but one that allows Paladins and has the retribution domain):

"Deliver vengeance to the guilty for those who cannot do it themselves." (His lost men, clearly, couldn't exactly do it themselves. Also note the use of the word vengeance, not justice)

"Without a civilized legal code with which to guide their judgments, they often default to a doctrine roughly equivalent to 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'." (Again, clearly the Bandit Kingdoms don't have an established legal code, so this default would have applied). [minor typos corrected]

I understand the code under which this paladin operates, I think, and the acts he committed here could be justified, if we assume one thing, which I will ask:

Does he have total, unrestricted authority to act on behalf of the church?

It seems unlikely. If not, then he should have sought out church permission first. With that in hand (the modern equivalent would be a warrant for arrest, a tried-in-absentia conviction along with an execution order), he would be free as an instrument of Righteous Vengeance (tm).

Without that, he is nothing more than a lawless vigilante, no matter how righteous his cause.

He needs to be either independent of church authority or be given permission for to act as the church's instrument of vengeance. It seems he was neither independent of the church nor given authority to act.

The church should look upon this act as a direct threat to their authority. In your campaign, the political (that is, church politics) implications of this should have the potential to be really, really big.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Does he have total, unrestricted authority to act on behalf of the church?

It seems unlikely. If not, then he should have sought out church permission first. With that in hand (the modern equivalent would be a warrant for arrest, a tried-in-absentia conviction along with an execution order), he would be free as an instrument of Righteous Vengeance (tm).

I respectfully disagree. I think you have it exactly wrong.

IMHO, the main purpose of having paladins for most gods is to send out champions who can impose justice upon lawless lands. They would be presumed to be able to act in the name of the church.

IMHO, the point of the Code is to give paladins the moral authority to act, not to create a leash in order to prevent them from acting. As long as the paladin properly follows the Code and pursues the goals of the church, it should be presumed the church will accept the paladin's judgement.

 

[Artoomis]

With all due respect, I think you have it exactly wrong.

IMHO, the main purpose of having paladins for most gods is to send out champions who can impose justice upon lawless lands. They would be presumed to be able to act in the name of the church.

IMHO, the point of the Code is to give paladins the moral authority to act, not to create a leash in order to prevent them from acting. As long as the paladin properly follows the Code and pursues the goals of the church, it should be presumed the church will accept the paladin's judgement.

With all due respect in return, Paladin's are not supposed to be loose cannons, either. In this particular case, the paladin is part of the church hierarchy. As such, his actions should be coordinated with the church, when possible.

Now, to be fair, in this case a certain amount of "they'll get away if a don't act now" can be legitimately claimed. Nonetheless, a paladin is NOT a law of his own, he respects local law, and also is an enforcement arm of church law.

In this case, the church is VERY lawful (we are told), so it just seems wrong that a paladin of this chruch would act without permission, unless an emergency arose.

Finally, church politics are usually quite important (at least to those invovled), and the ruling council must keep themselves as the sole church authority or they lose power and respect. The church council should be deciding who the enemies of the church are, not a paladin. Allowing a paladin to decide, on his own, who is an enemy of the church will dilute the council's authority - unacceptable.

This does not make the paladin a church lackey, but the "law" side of LG is being given pretty short shrift if the paladin gets to make all church-related decisions.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Artoomis,

I think your reasoning applies very aptly to areas where there exists some semblance of legitimate legal authority. The politics of branding individuals enemies should be controlled by the elders of the church.

But I see hunting down ruffians and murderers in lawless lands as something entirely different. The paladin is in fact uniquely qualified to function as a judge, jury, and executioner in those situations.

What is the point in having a specialized vocation that must uphold the highest ideals of the church if the church is not willing to trust the paladin's judgement in a locale devoid of moral order? What is the point in having paladins at all?

In my mind, the unique contribution of a paladin to a church hierarchy is a travelling judge with recognized moral authority. Obviously he should defer to appropriate local authorities if available. But otherwise he is on his own. That is what he is trained for.

 

[Artoomis]

Ridley's Cohort:

In the abstract, I agree with you.

In this particular case, though, it seems that there was plenty of opportunity for the paladin to check with church authorities, and that, in his church (hyper-lawful), it would be expected that the paladin would check-in unless circumstances would prevent him from doing so.

I infer that there was plenty of time for him to check with church authorities from the fact that he rather deliberately planned the retribution for the bandits. Also, IIRC, didn't he start in a civilized land near church authorities, teleport or something over to the bad guys, kill them, and then teleport back? It's not like he was deep in enemy territory or something.

As the Bandit Kingdom doesn't have a court of law to appeal to, the Paladin decided to go there...

And, when it was all said and done, he air walked home (alas, minus the tent and donkeys)

It just looks to me like he spent some time planning, and that he started and ended in his own home territory.

The way I see it, he was personally quite upset at what was done, and he decided, on his own, to act on behalf of the church, with church authority, to conduct a punitive raid on the Bandit Kingdom to hunt down and kill those who killed his retainers. Very un-paladin-like behavior. He really should have gotten specific authority for his acts before committing them. He had plenty if opportunity to do so (well, I think so, I really don't know that for sure).

Repercussions should be forthcoming. This should create a great role-playing opportunity.